South Africa’s ICJ case against Israel: Stumbling towards finality

Last week, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered a curious decision – one that the South African legacy media has largely ignored. Instead of holding Israel to filing its answer to South Africa’s case by the original deadline of 28 July 2025, the court granted a massive extension, to 28 January 2026.

On the face of it, this does not appear to be significant. But looking beneath the surface, there are serious implications for South Africa.

Funding the initial application: Why don’t we know where the money came from?

After South Africa instituted its application against Israel, alleging that it was committing genocide, speculation swirled about who was funding the case. After a lengthy silence, the Minister of Finance, Enoch Godongwana, stated in Parliament in December 2024 that South Africa was allocating a further R95 million to pursue the costs of the memorial (the founding case) at the ICJ. What remains unstated, and which the legacy media no longer questions, is who financed the initial application for preventative measures, which is distinguishable from the memorial. Credible sources such as the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy suggested that this funding came from Iran, and possibly Qatar as well. While the Department of International Relations and Cooperation said that the government had paid for it, Godongwana was more circumspect, dealing only with the memorial. The problem with this is that two years down the line there are still no financial records showing that any South African ministry either paid for, or budgeted for, the initial application.

Professor John Dugard, the de facto leader of the South African legal team, refused to give a straight answer, merely stating that “allegations of covert funding are politically charged but legally irrelevant. The ICJ assesses cases on merits, not on financial origins.” The suspicion that the government is either concealing information from its voting public or misrepresenting the position remains.

While doubts persist about the government and the initial funding, there was never a question about the capability of the South African legal team. This was the “A Team” – South Africa’s best silks and highly qualified and experienced international jurists. But with last week’s ICJ order this, too, needs to be looked at more closely.

The memorial submission: A legal battle shrouded in secrecy

The first substantive step in the case to prove that Israel has violated the Genocide Convention was the submission of a memorial detailing the genocide allegations. This memorial came at the hefty price of R95 million and a substantial amount of it was used for investigation and legal fees. South Africa submitted a monumental 750-page memorial, accompanied by more than 4 000 pages of exhibits and annexes, setting out its evidence against Israel, including accusations of forced displacement, starvation, and mass killing of Palestinians in Gaza.

However, in keeping with ICJ protocol, memorials are not made public, and so South Africa’s memorial content remains locked away from public scrutiny. Israel was obligated to submit its counter-memorial (its defence) by 28 July 2025, approximately six months after the filing of the memorial. That deadline has now taken a dramatic turn.

A stunning ICJ ruling: Nine months of displeasure?

The ICJ, after considering both South Africa’s and Israel’s submissions, ordered an unprecedented nine-month postponement to allow Israel to file its response – adding nine months onto the six months already given to respond. It suggests that the ICJ found serious procedural violations in South Africa’s submission.

Reliable leaks from “Western diplomats” have elaborated on the court’s order concerning the averment that “the counter-memorial had been significantly impeded because of a range of evidentiary issues that had arisen in connection with the memorial of the Republic of South Africa and in light of which the scope of the case remained unclear”. These leaks have now also been independently verified. In layman’s terms, the sources, and as verified by Israeli Professor Eugene Kontorovich and former Israeli Ambassador Alan Baker, state that South Africa submitted crucial evidence but concealed it from Israel, and it has submitted numerous unsubstantiated hearsay testimonies stemming from Hamas sources. South Africa’s response was that “the evidentiary issues raised concerned a limited number of documents and could in no way prejudice the respondent in the preparation of its case”.

For the “A Team” to pursue justice dishonestly would betray the very principle of justice itself. South Africa should be acting with integrity, transparency, and rigorous evidence – not through procedural violations, unreliable hearsay evidence, and secrecy. It should not be left to Israel to make sense of South Africa’s mess.

As any first-year law student would know, in these circumstances, there is a violation of fundamental legal principles and an inability to prove that Israel has committed “genocide” as accepted by the Genocide Convention. My law professor once said my essays were neither quantitative nor qualitative. It seems the ICJ has viewed South Africa’s procedural irregularities in a similar vein. Its response has been to give South Africa a virtual harsh slap across the face.

A fiasco at the expense of South Africa

With a government refusing to clarify who financed the initial application, and the “A Team” committing basic legal errors, South Africa’s financial and legal missteps are costing the nation dearly. At a time when South Africa is feeling international political heat, legal egg on the face is not what is needed now. If the case for genocide lacks the legal foundation and it doesn’t have the evidence, then South Africa must stop throwing millions into a losing battle. Justice demands more than passion. It demands precision. And right now, South Africa may not be offering either.

• Craig Snoyman is an advocate of the High Court, practising in Johannesburg.